View report page

The results of Sir Edward Frankland's bacteriological examination of the water supplied by the
London companies can be learnt from the annual summary of the Registrar General, and the number
of times in which he found more than 100 microbes in a cubic centimetre of the filtered water can be
thus ascertained. I have previously stated that a monthly examination of the water delivered by any
filter is no adequate test of the continued efficiency of the filtration, just as it is impossible to judge
of the weather at other times of a month by the condition of the weather during a particular hour of
the month. Sir Edward Frankland points out that the filtration plants of some of the companies
deliver the filtered water into general receptacles or wells, and hence the behaviour of each separate
filter cannot be known. In connection with filtration, Major-General Scott reports—" The Grand
Junction Company has completed the entire re-construction of six acres of filter-beds at Hampton,
previously used for preliminary filtration, which have now been converted into filters of the most
recent type. None of the filters recently constructed have been provided with appliances for continuously
gauging the rate of filtration. Such adjuncts are necessary aids for the maintenance of the bacterial
standard of purity which has been adopted."
Proceedings of the Council—During the parliamentary session 1896-97, bills promoted by the
Council for the purchase of the water companies' undertakings were introduced into Parliament, and
on the 9th February the Parliamentary Committee of the Council reported on the agreements which
had been come to with the several authorities in the water area outside the administrative County
of London. On the 23rd March the Committee reported that—" The second reading of the Chelsea
Water (Purchase) Bill was moved in the House of Commons on the 11th inst. by Mr. Buxton, member
for the Poplar division of the borough of Tower Hamlets. The rejection of the bill was moved by
Sir F. Dixon-Hartland, supported by the Government and carried on a division by 258 to 123. In
the case of the remaining bills the order for the second reading was ordered to be discharged and the
bills were withdrawn." On the 24th June the Committee thus reported on the bills promoted by
the water companies—
New River Company's Bill.
1.—Under this bill the New River Company sought to obtain power to issue new capital free from
the obligation to make a contribution out of revenue to the London water sinking fund. This obligation
has for some years past been uniformly applied by Parliament in cases of the issue of new capital by
the London water companies.
At an early stage the agent, by our instructions, intimated to the company that their bill should be
unopposed by the Council if they would insert the usual sinking fund clause. But the company declined
to accept this, and the Council had therefore to petition against the bill.
The bill was referred to a committee presided over by Mr. Rankin, who after hearing arguments
and evidence on the part of the company, and counsel on behalf of the Council, decided that the asual
sinking fund clause should be inserted.
East London Water Bill.
2.—The bill as introduced contained provisions authorising the company to appropriate the whole
of the remaining water of the river Lee. The Council petitioned against it, and we were able to arrange
by negotiation, without a contest, an amendment of the bill on this point, which appeared (satisfactory.
It was also considered necessary to oppose clause 14 of the bill in the form in which it was
originally introduced. This was the clause giving power to the company to enter into agreements with
other metropolitan water companies. The agent was, however, instructed to intimate to the company
that the petition would not be proceeded with if they would assent to such a modification of clause 14
as appeared to be necessary. The company declined this, and the matter had therefore to go before Mr.
Rankin's committee, who decided that the clause should be amended iu accordance with suggestions
made on behalf of the Council.
We think it right to point out that in both this case and that of the New River Company the contention
of the Council has been substantially justified and that all expense might have been avoided
had the companies concerned accepted in the first instance at the suggestion of the Council, the modifications
of their bills which were ultimately decided by Parliament to be reasonable.
Southward and Vauxhall Water Bill.
3.—This case is still under the consideration of Parliament.
The bill, as introduced by the company, contained extraordinary powers. The excuse for the bill
was that the Thames Conservancy had obtained an injunction against the company to prevent their
continuing that illegal appropriation of water from the river Thames which was pointed out to the
Council in Mr. Cripps' report on the position of the water companies in 1892. The company sought
power by their bill to appropriate and control the distribution of water from the Thames to an extent of
about double that which they are now authorised to appropriate.
Their statutory concession is limited to 20 millions of gallons per day of 24 hours, or if a certain
agreement between the Thames Conservancy and the company be ultimately held valid, 24,500,000
gallons per day of 24 hours.
It was pointed out in the petition of the Council against the bill that as regards the greater part
of this district the consumers are only prevented by the action of this company from obtaining better
water at lower prices. If this company ceased to supply in Deptford, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe and